Standing Committee A

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. As you will be aware, anxiety has been expressed about the amount of time allocated to the Bill. Those arguments have now been shot out of the water by the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), to the extent that I was entirely frozen out of the previous sitting. I should like to place that on the record, and I hope that compensation will be given in time on Report.

Bill O'Brien: I have read the Hansard report, and I note your point.

John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Brien. Generally the Committee has been conducted in a good and convivial spirit. It was very much to be regretted that that spirit broke down at the end of last Thursday's proceedings. As I explained, there was no intention of closing off opportunities for Liberal Democrat Members to contribute to the debate. In a rather unguided and ham-fisted way, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) referred to our conduct. It is only fair to emphasise that on the last matter for debate last Thursday, I made a speech of only seven minutes. His rather misguided and random attack was ill advised. I have enjoyed listening to his contributions, and on many occasions in the Committee my colleagues and I have agreed with him. It was a matter of regret to us that he blew his top and lost his temper and behaved so aggressively. I tried to appease him after the conclusion of the Committee, but—

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are now getting into speeches, rather than points of order. I note the points that have been made. Clause 38 Offences by bodies corporate

Clause 38 - Offences by bodies corporate

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 22, line 16, after `managed', insert `or controlled'.
 Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I welcome you back to the Chair. A point of absolute consensus would be that you have been an excellent Chairman, superbly supported by Mr. Sayeed and Mr. Wells. I hope that on that amicable note we may start our proceedings. 
 It is with misty eye, leaden foot and a heavy heart that I rise to speak this morning, not because I have any doubts about the merits or importance of amendment No. 89, but simply because this is the last day of our consideration of the Bill in Committee. I have much enjoyed our proceedings, and I regret that they are now drawing to a close. I was almost desolate last night to be told by the Under-Secretary that, although he would be attending our proceedings, he did not intend to contribute further. That is regrettable, but we are delighted to have him here until a quarter to one, and I look forward to further jousting with him on Report. 
 The amendment is designed as a mechanism to engender debate. We are unlikely to press the matter to a Division, but the issues involved are important. The clause deals with offences by bodies corporate. It specifically provides for prosecutions not only against bodies corporate but against individuals in such bodies corporate who are thought to be responsible for breaches of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Government to clarify their thinking and, if necessary, the clause. 
 The clause seems to imply that the managers of salvage or licence plate businesses could be responsible for the actions of one individual in that business. That might or might not be fair. It could depend on the seniority, and therefore, the level of assumed responsibility of the individual in question. I am keen to establish the precedents of this type of clause. Is the Minister aware of precedents in any Bills, now Acts, to justify the inclusion of the unamended clause? I should be grateful if he, not abstractly but by example, would develop the argument and explain the circumstances in which it could have a beneficial effect and in which its absence would have a deleterious impact. 
 The explanatory notes state that any offence that is committed under the Bill that is 
committed with the consent of, or is 
attributable 
to, a director, manager, secretary or other relevant officer, 
may result in the prosecution of that person ``as well as'' of ``the body corporate''. That is unobjectionable in principle. The particulars of an individual instance or the meat of the case is what really matters. I am not clear how the clause will apply in practice, or whether a junior person could, as a result of the inadvertent neglect of duty, end up being prosecuted. My intention is in no way to protect senior and powerful individuals within a business who should exercise responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I am concerned that a relatively junior person within the business might end up copping it—if I can, inelegantly but bluntly, put it that way—under the Bill. Will the Minister either reassure us that that will not happen or provide justification as to why it should? 
 The Government should clarify why the actions of one individual, even a junior one, should result in the prosecution of an entire business. Is it not arguable that one prosecution would be enough? If the Minister disagrees, will he explain why two or even several prosecutions would be justified? We have proposed the addition of ``or controlled'' in order to stimulate debate. It might give clarity to a clause that is slightly unclear, at least on first inspection to my colleagues and me. 
 No one disputes that a person in control of a body corporate who commits a breach of the Act, should be held responsible. However, if an individual is employed on a junior level within the body corporate and acts with good intent, although inappropriately, as it turns out, will such a person be liable to prosecution? Clarification is required. 
 I rest the case. I am not looking to press the matter to a vote at this stage, but I should be grateful if the Minister could provide better particulars on the Government's thinking on the subject.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham knows that I support him on the matter. Members of the Committee will know that I share a concern about shell companies, which I have mentioned on previous occasions. Those are companies of which the directors are registered with Companies House, but which are managed by people who are not registered as its directors. As I have said in the past, I am aware that in the Companies Acts, a director is stated to be somebody registered as such, or who acts as a director. However, there is a danger that a company acting unlawfully and the individuals running it may not be prosecuted if we retain the term ``managed'' without adding ``or controlled''.
 We have heard recent reports in the newspapers and on the broadcast media that Railtrack personnel may be prosecuted as a result of the recent derailment. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that specific instance, but we have also heard reports that, ever since the incident involving the Herald of Free Enterprise, there has not been a single successful prosecution of directors or people working for a body corporate when such a body has committed an offence. Although I welcome the clause, I wonder whether the Minister believes that there will ever be a successful prosecution of that kind, given the performance of the prosecuting authorities under both Labour and Conservative Governments. 
 Does the Minister agree that adding the words ``or controlled'' would provide assistance to those organisations that feel that such a prosecution should be made under the clause? Those words would tear away the curtains that may conceal those who secretly control a company, a partnership limited by guarantee or the other forms of partnership described earlier in the Bill.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that subsection (1) is potentially disturbing? We know that one of the responsibilities of a motor salvage operator or a registration plate supplier is to furnish details of changes of their circumstances to the central authority. If a secretary inadvertently failed to dispatch those details, he or she would, on the face of it, be subject to prosecution because of an error committed negligently, but not in bad faith.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises a valid concern. Not only the secretary but the manager or managers above him or her, as well as the directors, might be prosecuted in such a case. We may assume that the prosecuting authorities would apply some common sense, but should an Act of Parliament be dependent on common sense? Are the Government missing something here, which my hon. Friend has highlighted?
 The term ``Offences by bodies corporate'' does not adequately specify those offences that might result in a fine on the body or the imprisonment of those individuals. There appears to be nothing in the clause—although the Minister may reassure me—that puts any restriction on the sort of offence that might be applied to the individuals involved. The final words of subsection (1) state that the individual will be ``punished accordingly'', but no reference is made to the degree or level of that punishment. 
 I find it extraordinary, in the context of the English legal system, that we might consider sending someone to prison in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Is there anything in the Bill to prevent a hanging judge from, if not hanging the secretary or her boss, sending them to prison for any length of time? The Minister needs to answer such questions. I have expressed at some length our concerns about the imprecision of clause 38, although we welcome its general principle.

Charles Clarke: Perhaps I may make an appeal to members of the Committee at this juncture. At the beginning of the proceedings, the hon. Member for Colchester raised a point of order about time. I am not asking him to intervene, but he was less preoccupied with the speech to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred than with the lengthy exchanges at our previous sitting about relatively marginal issues. With respect, the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham and one third of those made by the hon. Member for Lichfield were to the point and worthy of debate, but two thirds of those made by the hon. Member for Lichfield about hanging judges were just going round the course. No one is suggesting that secretaries could be hanged as a result of the Bill. I appeal to hon. Members to focus on the issues in hand.
 Corporate manslaughter is a serious matter, as we saw in the Herald of Free Enterprise and Hatfield disasters. The Government are consulting on changing the law. I have been involved in many discussions with company directors about such matters and it is fair to say that most companies recognise that the law needs to be changed, but it is difficult to formulate it to make it possible to bring prosecutions. The matter is not germane to our discussions, but I address it because the hon. Member for Lichfield did so. 
 The precedents point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham is fair. I am advised that there are many precedents, but, as always when we wish to list them, we do not have them to hand as we speak. The Registered Homes Act 1984 is probably one such precedent, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman, if that is acceptable, before Report, setting out the precedents that may help him. 
 The clause addresses individual and corporate liability for offences under the Bill. It provides that company office holders and members exercising management functions shall also be held liable if they are culpably negligent or consent to or connive at the company's offence. That is a reasonable and appropriate approach. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be to ensure that offences under the Bill applied also to people who controlled a company—a controlling shareholder, for example, as cited by the hon. Member for Lichfield—but were not directors. 
 We discussed the point previously and understand the sentiments behind the amendment, but we have no reason to believe that motor salvage operators are controlled by large shareholders, nor have we had representations from the police to suggest that that is the case. That is why we believe that the liability should stop at director and manager level, and not extend to controlling shareholders. It is important to focus on those who bear responsibility, as directors do, even in a shell company, as we have already discussed. To impose a criminal offence is a serious matter and we do not wish to cast it wider. 
 On the question of what constitutes an officer of the company, clause 38(1) refers to 
a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate. 
We are focusing on directors and managers. If it were a matter of a secretary forgetting changes, they would have a defence, but an officer of the company has a clearly defined responsibility, as has a manager. It is possible to make it clear that we are talking about people who are running the company, and I hope that I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister uses an interesting methodology to defend the wording of clause 38, when he says that the current circumstances appertaining to the ownership of salvage and licence plate companies mean that they are not large corporations. If the circumstances were to change and for some reason there were a consolidation and larger companies developed, would the wording of the clause be insufficient and need to be amended?

Charles Clarke: We are keen not to make the mistake for which the hon. Member for Buckingham often chides us of putting everything in regulations. We have no regulations to cover the changing events to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that if a substantial structure of shell companies and controlling shareholders built up that was a threat to the vehicle salvage industry and to control of vehicle crime, we would look at the matter again.

John Bercow: The reference here is not to a company secretary but to an administrative personal assistant. In no sense am I cavilling at or detracting from the enormous contribution that an efficient secretary can make to the running of a company. We know that some secretaries effectively run the ship of state. However, assuming that the secretary is an administrative employee, working under, on the instructions and to the requirements of her or his boss, does the Minister accept that it is slightly curious that a secretary should be bracketed with somebody who has decision-making power within a company? Does he accept that a secretary within a Government Department would not be blamed for an error, even if it were hers, that the Minister reported to Parliament? The Minister would be held responsible.

Charles Clarke: A certain lack of clarity is coming into this conversation for which I may be responsible, in which case I apologise. The word ``secretary'' covers a wide variety of functions from Secretary of State to a very lowly administrative position in certain organisations. We are talking here about the secretary of the body corporate, which is a reference to the company secretary. ``Manager'' can also describe a wide variety of functions. In the example given by the hon. Member for Lichfield, if anyone failed to enter the data in the way required by law, there would always be a defence under clause 10(5):
 In proceedings for an offence . . . it shall be a defence for the accused to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. 
So if such a mistake occurred, it would be dealt with. 
 The focus of the clause is on those who bear responsibility in the company. That is why the phrase 
director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate 
is used. Thus, in the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Buckingham refers, in which a manager simply gives an instruction to a secretary—his administrative assistant—the responsibility would lie with the person who gave the instruction rather than the person who received it to deal with the situation. 
 This is a fairly standard set of formulations and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: I was comforted by the Minister's response more than I was by the unamended clause. I am still not entirely happy. I accept that the reference is to
secretary . . . or other similar officer of the body corporate 
which lends some weight and credence to the Minister's claim that we are talking about a company secretary as distinct from a personal assistant. I should be more content if it were clear beyond peradventure that an administrative assistant could not be held responsible for failing to undertake a duty that she had been instructed to undertake by her boss. In such circumstances, even though it would be unfortunate that she had not done her duty, she should not end up being liable under the terms of the Bill. I am not absolutely satisfied that she would not be. I accept that it is no part of the Government's intention that she should be, but I would be more relaxed if there were no possibility of a junior, relatively powerless member of the business being held liable for prosecution for inadvertent error. I am not entirely satisfied on that point, but I was encouraged by what the Minister had to say.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase ``inadvertent error''. I refer him again to clause 10(5), which deals with that point.

John Bercow: The Minister refers me to clause 10(5). I rustle at a rate of knots to page 7 of the Bill, where the hon. Gentleman has directed my eyes to the option of: a defence for the accused to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
 It was a nice try, but I am not entirely satisfied. What I am describing is a circumstance in which an individual employee of a business committed a howler, made a mistake— possibly a crass mistake—and did not exercise all due diligence. However, in no sense was he motivated to break the law, and we are talking about obligations in law. 
 We all make mistakes in the course of discharging our parliamentary duties, whether by tabling a question incorrectly, faltering and making the wrong point in debate or sending an incorrect response to a constituent. I shall doubtless be punished by my personal assistant for saying this, but our personal assistants occasionally make errors also; they do not exercise all due diligence. They commit a gaffe, display incompetence or file something incorrectly, but that does not render them liable to prosecution. The Minister may shrug, but there is a risk that people who make errors that, though innocent, are examples of incompetence, could be liable to prosecution. All I want the Minister to say is, ``That would not happen.''

Charles Clarke: That would not happen.

John Bercow: The Minister has said it. His utterance is reassuring, although made from a sedentary position, and I am grateful to him, but it is not a substitute for a satisfactory get-out for such a person in the Bill. However, although it has no constitutional significance, the fact that the reassurance has been offered by this particular Minister of State and prospective leader of the Labour party gladdens my heart. [Interruption.] The Minister is now chuntering from a sedentary position and feverishly grasping a newspaper cutting. I am agog to hear what he has to say.

Charles Clarke: I wanted to inform the Committee that the hon. Gentleman's efforts to promote his own leadership have succeeded. The newspaper diary piece is entitled ``Smart money going on Tory terrier John''. To redress the balance, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that if or, as the diarist says, ``when'' William Hague loses the next election—I think that we all agree ``when''—

Bill O'Brien: Order. The Minister is trespassing on my generosity. I call Mr. Bercow.

John Bercow: I am grateful, Mr. O'Brien. Your generosity has now been exhausted. You remind me of the old saying about the bloke who knows a good joke but will not tell it. The Minister was about to conclude the anecdote. I was all agog, waiting with bated breath and beads of sweat on my brow, to learn the conclusion—

Bill O'Brien: Order. I am waiting with bated breath to know what is going to happen to amendment No. 89.

John Bercow: Clause 38 can rest content. It is not being sent for an early bath. I am reassured by the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I was disturbed by what the Minister said when he defended the wording of the clause by saying that it applied to the size, structure and position of salvage companies as they exist at present. I confess that I have not heard of a previous case of a clause being drafted to cover what may be only temporary circumstances within the organisations to which it applies. The Minister reassured me that the clause could be altered through subsequent legislation on the Floor of the House, should circumstances change and larger organisations coalesce. However, he knows, as I do, that time in the House is at a premium. I am surprised that the drafting of the Bill depends on the present size and position of companies. It would not have been too difficult to draft clause 38, which is non-controversial in itself, in such a way as to encompass large corporations controlled by many members, or corporations as they currently exist.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Service of notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: We have not tabled an amendment to this clause, and nor has anyone else. I am minded—

Greg Pope: To keep it going.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) says, slightly ungraciously, that I am minded to keep it going. I am not and I shall prove that to him.

Andrew Miller: I did not say a word.

John Bercow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if it was a case of mistaken identity. I thought that it was the hon. Gentleman because, as he knows, the Whip is supposed to sit silent and expressionless, and he failed to do so.
 I understand that a notice can be served by delivery to the person suspected of an offence at his proper address, or by sending it to that address. Given that it is 2001 and the Cabinet Office is preoccupied with e-mail, the internet and modern devices which I have largely escaped and been immune to, I do not see why the Bill contains no provision for modern methods of transmission. I recognise that original documents must often be provided, but I am not clear why there should not be such a facility. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is chuntering that there is such a facility.

Michael Fabricant: I confess that I have sent e-mails to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to which I have never received replies. That is not because he is rude to me, but because he never checks his inbox. In this instance, he has not checked his inbox in relation to subsection (6), which deals with the issue.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is right and I concede the point. I am reassured that there is such a provision and apologise for detaining the Committee.

Michael Fabricant: I wish to ask a couple of questions, and to talk about subsection (6). Mention has been made of to where notices should be delivered, and registered offices are well understood in terms of the Companies Acts. The Minister will appreciate that it is some years since I left university.

John Bercow: Thirty, to wit.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend says 30, in reference to a comment that I made last week. I realise that I did an injustice to myself, and it is less than 30 years. Clause 39(2)(c) and clause 39(3) refer to:
the principal office of the partnership 
Clause 39(3) also refers to the principal office within the United Kingdom of an organisation that has a registered office outside the United Kingdom. Does ``principal office'' have a meaning in law? In other words, is it clearly defined elsewhere and, if so, where? 
 Subsection (6) deals with the electronic transmission of notices. I am not sure how familiar the Minister is with the use of e-mail.

Charles Clarke: Very.

Michael Fabricant: He will know, then, that an e-mail does not always arrive at its destination. I believe that, normally, when a notice is served, it is sent by Royal Mail recorded delivery. One is thereby assured that a notice had been delivered to a premises. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
 Although I embrace electronic communication with enthusiasm and use it daily, I know that sometimes, not often, e-mails are not delivered. In the past, I have even asked for an electronic receipt. Sometimes, the e-mail goes to a server that automatically sends me a receipt, but the server has failed to deliver the e-mail to the addressee. The e-mail has simply sat on the server. 
 How can the Minister be sure that an e-mail notice is delivered? Does he agree that a great injustice could occur if someone is prosecuted for not acting in accordance with a notice served on them, if he or she never received the notice?

Charles Clarke: I am a regular e-mail user and find it an effective means of communication. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman also uses e-mail. I know that his experience of running pirate radio stations when he was younger—I was told on Friday that he was an entrepreneur in his field—informs his questions.
 The issue of the principal office is well defined in legislation, such as the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 or the Partnership Act 1890. This part of the Bill is drafted in accordance with current practice, including e-communication practice. No particular aspect of the Bill concerns the forms of communication involved. 
 A great deal of expertise exists on the development of e-Government. One question asked is, what is the legal standing of a signature sent electronically? The wording of the clause is in accordance with that practice. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's detailed point about confirming that an e-mail notice has been delivered. I accept that it is a point of substance and do not deride it in any way. I can only say that we are working in accordance with what is happening generally. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. I believe that the legislation that the clause addresses is consonant with other legislation in this area.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Minister is right that the clause is consistent with other legislation. The parallel that the hon. Member for Lichfield drew between e-mail and the postal service is a fair observation, but one that can be answered. Even in the context of recorded delivery letters, one does not know that the person within the body corporate to whom the letter is addressed has signed for it; all that one knows is that a receipt has been received.

Charles Clarke: That is very helpful. My hon. Friend has more expertise than me on these matters.
 Subsection (6), to which the hon. Member for Lichfield referred, includes the phrase: 
provided the text is received by that person in legible form. 
If they do not receive it, a case for prosecution is unlikely to stack up. However, I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman raised a real issue about how communication between the state, private enterprise and individuals will be dealt with in the future. I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 39 should stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Orders and regulations under this act

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 23, leave out lines 29 and 30.
 The clause deals with orders and regulations under the Act. The amendment proposes to delete lines 29 and 30, and its effect would be to remove the facility to exercise discretion. I doubt why the Secretary of State should have the power, 
to make different provision for different cases...or for different purposes or different areas.
 Several points relevant to this matter were aired in the Committee's discussion of clause 34, but the arguments are worth batting around again. 
 The provision seems to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to implement the EU end-of-life vehicles directive. Is that not dangerous? The provision appears to say that the statutory instrument would give the Secretary of State greater power to make different provisions for different areas. How much power does the Secretary of State want? What are the different scenarios in different areas, or involving different purposes, which justify the accretion to the Secretary of State of more power that he can choose to exercise in varying degrees, or not at all? For example, if the provision on notification is to apply, surely it should apply equally to all businesses in all areas? After all, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is a national body and it should be able to rely on a standard, uniform service from scrap metal dealers. 
 In the name of specificity, and therefore of predictability, the Bill and the clause should, as far as possible, be prescriptive rather than permissive. The Committee has debated this subject at length. I have argued for tying down the powers of the Secretary of State and his Ministers as far as possible, so that the nature and extent of those powers are apparent and the manner in which they may be exercised can be foreseen with reasonable confidence and precision. By contrast, Ministers have tended to pray in aid the unforeseen or the unpredictable, arguing that it justifies the accretion to them of more power, which they can decide how to exercise at some unspecified time in the future. I am uncomfortable about that. 
 I am minded, therefore, to raise again the concern that I mentioned when the subject was previously debated: namely, that what bothers me about much of the legislation, and certainly about lines 29 and 30 of the clause, is that there is so little specific information or reassurance by way of example. I hope that the Minister will be willing and able today to give me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield examples of when and how differential application of ministerial power would be exercised. The Minister claims that he must have maximum flexibility as different scenarios might arise and that it is sensible not to tie the clause down in a way that might not permit him, or agents acting on his behalf, to exercise powers that were subsequently judged necessary. 
 I would be more comfortable if he were able and willing to say that the provision is needed because business X and Y might differ in their size, location, or another material factor. He has not yet been specific about differential application, and that lack of specificity makes me uncomfortable. It is our duty to probe the Minister and to try to get him to offer a more concrete justification of the unamended clause. I do not object—and neither does my hon. Friend—to the principle of vesting power in the Secretary of State. Nor are we objecting to the exercise of power by statutory instrument. Our objection is that, if such a power is to exist, it should be clearly described and applied in a way that does not inappropriately discriminate between one motor salvage operator and another, one registered plate supplier and another, or one scrap metal dealer and another.

Michael Fabricant: I have been sent to this legislature to scrutinise legislation, as well as to represent the interests of my constituents. Last week, I spoke about the predilection of the Government to include blank cheques in legislation, whereby later they can completely negate tight clauses. Clause 40(2)(a) is a blank cheque, if ever there was one. It allows the Secretary of State to introduce an order
 to make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case or for different purposes. 
 It is the blankest of blank cheques.

John Bercow: I acknowledge that the Minister might be able to reassure us as to the benign character of the unamended clause, but the official Opposition have expressed concern about the Henry VIII character of such an exercise of power by regulations. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide a sample draft copy of the regulations before Report and Third Reading.

Michael Fabricant: Draft regulations certainly would be helpful, but in response to inquiries from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, the Minister wrote to members of the Committee on 22 January, saying:
we do not intend to provide any draft regulations before the Bill is enacted. 
He went on to say: 
 We consulted major stakeholders before the Bill was introduced and they agreed to work out matters of detail at a later stage so that we can take account of any amendments to the Bill. 
I understand what the Minister wrote in his letter, but he wants us to rubber-stamp a Bill that has gaping holes. We have to trust his integrity—about which there is little doubt—but, more to the point, we have to trust the integrity of future Ministers. Subsection (2)(a) leaves too much to chance and, for that reason, I join my hon. Friend in asking for it to be deleted.

John Bercow: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend's comments. The fact that the Government have decided not to issue draft regulations before the Bill is enacted but rather to await consideration of amendments is a good reason why those regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We would then have an opportunity at a later stage to examine them and express an opinion on them.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, we are a legislature and our job is to scrutinise legislation. Provisions such as this avoid such scrutiny, which is dangerous. We will discuss amendment No. 32 later, and I believe that it would provide a useful alternative to subsection (2)(a). It would provide tighter but reasonable constraints that would still give the Home Secretary flexibility to ensure that the legislation would be applicable in changing circumstances.

Anne McIntosh: I apologise for my late arrival, Mr. O'Brien.
 I thank the Minister for replying to me on a separate matter, in which he referred to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. I support the amendment because—I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will not take exception to this—subsection (2)(a) appears to be a Liberal solution, proposing different solutions for different parts of the country. Worse still, it could appear to be a federal solution and, as the Minister will appreciate, the official Opposition are opposed to federalism in any shape or form.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when she says that the subsection appears to be Liberal, she does not mean to imply that it is permissive, but merely that it cannot make up its mind?

Anne McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, with which I agree entirely.
 I referred to the Weights and Measures Act 1985 in relation to the empowerment of the Secretary of State because I fear problems similar to those that arose from a recent court case, details of which were spread across the national newspapers last weekend. Under the Bill as it stands, statutory instruments could be passed at short notice and without proper scrutiny—which I always understood was the purpose of Standing Committees— resulting in prosecutions that were unintended by the Government of the day. I urge the Minister to support the amendment and not to put himself and his Government into that situation. Any regulations and their application, to which subsection (2)(a) refers, should be put before the Committee today. I associate myself with the amendment and want to see subsection (2)(a) struck from the Bill.

David Chidgey: Good morning, Mr. O'Brien. I almost felt glad to be back from my excursions to the frozen north of Europe, but hearing points of order about colleagues being frozen out, I felt that I had never been away.
 I have some reservations about subsection (2)(a). Most parliamentarians would agree that it is typical for the Government to define its legislation in this way, but my main concern is that it provides no opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise or approve any such exercise of powers that a Minister may require. My intervention will be brief, although it is neither illiberal nor undecided. My point is simply that I would prefer such orders to be brought before Parliament, so that they can be challenged as necessary.

Charles Clarke: A number of the comments that have been made relate to amendment No. 32 and I hope that they will be considered in that context.
 As the hon. Member for Buckingham said in moving the amendment, we fully debated a number of the points in Committee, so we should get to the nub. Subsection (2) states that 
 Any power of the Secretary of State . . . may be exercised— 
so it is a permissive clause. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, such clauses are a common feature of legislation—but what is their purpose? Specific detailed legislation should be discussed substantially and in detail with those affected by it; that is true of not only this Bill but other measures. Those affected include the various organisations of the motor salvage industry, the number plate suppliers, the Local Government Association, the Institute of Trading Standards and the motor safety organisations. Such a discussion can best take place on the basis of a knowledge of what Parliament's intention in these matters is.

John Bercow: Are.

Charles Clarke: No, I said ``Parliament's intention is''. The hon. Gentleman may have misheard me, perhaps deliberately—although my paranoid streak may be showing.
 Such a clause is correct in the context, given that we are interested in discussing and consulting the industry. Specific examples of the reasons for consultation have already been given, but I will recite them again. They include the need to take account of the different sizes and natures of businesses and the need to be prepared to consider the precise way in which we apply regulations to take account of the different natures of the businesses. The hon. Member for Buckingham referred to that last point in previous debates on the matter. Whether we will need different characteristic approaches for different types of businesses depends on the consultation that I described.

John Bercow: Is there a read-across between sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (b)? Does the Minister envisage circumstances in which differential application of the power will be applied to large and small businesses in relation to transitory matters?

Charles Clarke: I can envisage it, but I do not anticipate it. Precisely because I can envisage it, we seek to establish flexibility through the clauses that we have discussed, by laying regulations for different circumstances.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: No. We are about to discuss amendment No. 32, which deals with affirmative resolution. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment, because—

John Bercow: I am trying to help the Minister, although he seems oblivious of the fact. Having explained the theory, will he give me one example of differential application based on science? That is all I ask for, as I am a modest fellow with modest ambitions and modest expectations even of this rising Minister. Will he give one instance of how the Government might apply regulations differentially, as between a larger or smaller company?

Charles Clarke: It is imaginable—although not the Government's intention—that we may be able to introduce regulation earlier for large number plate suppliers than for small number plate suppliers. I emphasise that that is not the Government's intention, but we seek to be flexible as possible, and not to have a uniform approach to every type of enterprise and circumstance when we receive representations about the implementation of the legislation.

John Bercow: That seems clear but, for the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister answer one question? Would the desire to save money for small companies or, at least, to stagger the introduction of new regulations in order to minimise the short-term burden, be a factor that inclines the Government to apply the regulations differentially?

Charles Clarke: It could be, but the real issue is the burden of regulation on different types of industry. We are keen, for reasons with which the Committee is familiar, to tailor the burden to the size of the industry. We do not have a specific intent, but seek a permissive ability for us to take account of representations made about the burden of legislation and the cost to particular businesses. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment so that we can have the power to talk properly to the types of businesses of which he has rightly urged us to take account.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: Very well.

Anne McIntosh: How does the Minister propose to avoid a situation whereby innocent people are prosecuted under a change that is subsequently introduced by Order in Council?

Charles Clarke: It might have been helpful if the hon. Lady, who has spoken on this matter in relation to other areas, had listened to what I had to say on those occasions, or done us the courtesy of being present at the beginning of the debate. I was reluctant to give way because, for that reason, I could not take her seriously. There will be no prosecutions of innocent people in this regard. As I have said on a number of occasions, the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to be flexible, and to take account of the interests of the industry in knowing what the regulations do, in fact, bring forth. I have tried several times to wind up, and I urge the hon. Member for Buckingham to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow: I am content to withdraw the amendment. Once again, I find the Minister's words reassuring. However, I return to a point recognised and accepted by all legislators—a measure should be judged on its merits, and on its potential demerits in the wrong hands. Although I am inclined to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this occasion because of what the Minister has said, I might be much less comfortable with the differential application of the powers in the hands of a less benign Minister. I certainly do not rule out the possibility of returning to the matters at a later stage, but as an earnest of good intent and a sign that we are willing to take his intentions at face value, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 23, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
 `(3) The Secretary of State shall make no orders or regulations under this Act (other than an order under section 43) unless a draft of the order or regulation, as the case may be, has first been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
 I shall be a model of brevity. My hon. Friends and I have argued many times in Committee that regulations flowing from the Bill should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I know that the Minister disagrees, but I believe that the regulations flowing from the Bill will represent its heart or meat. It is not right that they should simply be nodded through. 
 I am happy to rest the case in deference to other members of the Committee, including hon. Friends who might wish to contribute, and also to the hon. Member for Colchester, who was angry that he was not able to contribute the other day and who I am sure will want to contribute today. The arguments have been rehearsed many times, and the Minister knows where I am coming from on the subject. We have to agree to differ.

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Member for Buckingham says, the debate is familiar. It is not dishonourable. It is a perfectly fair and reasonable discussion between Opposition and Government about how to deal with matters. I argue only for a sense of proportion. As currently drafted, clause 40 requires all orders and regulations made under the Bill except commencement orders to be subject to the negative resolution procedure, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, offers an opportunity to pray against an order or regulation within 40 days of its being laid, failing which it becomes law. Regulations that require affirmative approval should be matters of weight and substance for the attention of the whole House. There are areas in which we would all agree that that is necessary, and I do not think that it is necessary in this case.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: No. I will let the hon. Gentleman make his point in his summation on the amendment. The negative resolution procedure is perfectly adequate to deal with such matters. I see no point in my dilating at greater length on the arguments, which are familiar and have been well rehearsed, including in the Committee. I urge him to withdraw the amendment. If he does not do so, I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.

John Bercow: Seasoned observers of Parliament will be aware of the distinction between the affirmative and negative procedures. However, it is possible that there will be people taking an interest in the Bill, either as individual citizens or on behalf of pressure groups, who will not be well versed in or even remotely aware of that distinction. The affirmative procedure allows debate on regulations and the negative procedure denies it.
 The Minister and I will have to agree to differ. I accept that it is a matter of judgment. I am not arguing that every single regulation that flows from every piece of Government legislation should be subject to debate in Parliament. I am arguing that in many cases regulations should be debated in Parliament and that in many cases it would have been in the Government's own interest for them to have been properly debated. I will not animadvert to matters that are not within the purview of this Committee because you would upbraid me, Mr. O'Brien, were I to do so, but it is relevant by way of analogy to underline why my hon. Friends and I are concerned about the intended absence of debate on those matters. We know, simply from reading the book, the difficulties into which the Government have plunged as a result of earlier denials of debate. I refer to the 71 pages of A4 on the regulations to give effect to the working time directive as an example. That example motivates me in the amendment. The Government chose to steamroller regulations through Parliament without debate. Subsequently, it was seen that those regulations contained grave flaws, and a subsequent Secretary of State had to revise them. It is at least arguable that if they had been subjected to full and thorough scrutiny by the House, that problem would not have arisen. 
 The Minister has been inclined to argue that there is limited parliamentary time and that such debates are not the best use of that time. However, it is not quite as simple as that. If Ministers decide that a matter should not be debated in Parliament because it does not merit parliamentary time, and if subsequently the regulations are shown to be burdensome or inadequately drafted in one form or another, will the Minister acknowledge that at that point the regulations will have to be amended and might well be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny, debate or questioning, which would also absorb time? Some generosity of spirit, as well as simple prudence, at the outset might avoid the wasting of time at a later stage, as well as the attendant personal embarrassment to the Minister, who is obliged to eat his earlier words or those of one of his predecessors. 
 One other point is worth making, although I will then be content to withdraw the amendment and not to subject it to a vote. We are talking about a very small amount of time. Will the Minister at least recognise that? He has often talked about it as though a great burden would be imposed. Will he at least confirm by nodding that we would be talking about 90 minutes of debate, no more?

Charles Clarke: I have never implied that it is a great burden, as it is not, but nor is it a relatively small amount of time. It is a question of the best way of dealing with a situation.

John Bercow: Indeed. The Minister believes that the best way is by the negative procedure, whereas I believe that it is by the affirmative procedure. That is why I tabled the amendment. I have listened to his response. I do not agree with it, but I do not wish at this stage to put the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule - Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

John Bercow: Can the Minister explain paragraph 1(4)?

Charles Clarke: I can, and am glad to do so. The schedule details consequential amendments to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. It is given effect by clause 42.
 Clause 34 closes a loophole in the regulatory apparatus for motor salvage by amending the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. It enables regulations to be made requiring registered scrap metal dealers to notify the destruction of a motor vehicle, which mirrors the provision in clause 8 for registered salvage dealers. Paragraph 1 to the schedule amends the section of the 1964 Act dealing with rights of entry and inspection to extend the powers to the records of notification of destruction of motor vehicles.

John Bercow: The Minister is pronouncing ``schedule'' the American way.

Charles Clarke: That is my pronunciation. Paragraph 2 adjusts the definition of carrying on business as a scrap metal dealer to exclude motor salvage operators required to be registered under the Bill who carry on ancillary scrap metal dealing activities. This ensures that there is no undue overlap between the 1964 Act and the Bill.
 Paragraphs 3 and 4 are related to the provisions of clause 31 and to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Clause 31 enables the Secretary of State to require applications for vehicle licences to furnish ``documentary or other evidence''. Paragraph 3 inserts similar provisions in section 7(2) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 in relation to goods vehicles. Paragraph 4, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred, amends section 22(2A)(d) of the 1994 Act to reflect the provisions in clause 31 in relation to exempt vehicles. 
 I will not deal with paragraphs 5 and 6 in detail, as the hon. Gentleman asked specifically about paragraph 4. 
 All these provisions are consequential, because a vehicle that needs to be submitted for a vehicle identity check will not necessarily have a current vehicle excise duty licence. The keeper of a vehicle that does not have one will be unable to obtain one until the vehicle has passed a vehicle identity check. 
 I hope that those explanations are satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule agreed to. 
 Clauses 43 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Registration of car park operators

`.—(1) Any person who carries on business as a car park operator in the area of a local authority without being registered for that area by the authority shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 
 (2) For the purposes of this section a person carries on business as a car park operator if he carries on a business which consists wholly or partly in the provision of parking spaces for motor vehicles in areas and premises reserved for that purpose and for which he makes a charge. 
 (3) In this section ``registered'' means registered in a register established and maintained by a local authority under subsection (4); and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 
 (4) Every local authority shall establish and maintain a register for their area of persons carrying on business as car park operators in that area. 
 (5) The register shall, subject to any requirements that may be prescribed, be in such form as the local authority consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Chidgey.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

David Chidgey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause deals with the registration of car park operators. We are dealing with vehicle crime, and car parks are at the hub of such crime.
 The new clause is designed to raise standards in car parks. The Committee may not realise that motorists at present have no consumer rights at all in exchange for paying a parking fee to enter a car park. Case law, which has been established for more than 50 years, since before the war, is very clear on the point: the payment of a parking charge is the purchase of a licence to enter private land, and that is all. The car park's owner is under no obligation whatever to try to prevent theft of or from cars in the car park.

Michael Fabricant: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's proposals, but would he not accept that case law exists that states that a contract is entered into when the car park is entered? National Car Parks will often have terms and conditions that must be agreed before a contract is engaged in. The contract is undertaken between the owner of the car and the car park company as soon as the barrier is lifted and the owner enters the car park.

David Chidgey: That may be the case, but the terms and conditions set out at the entrance to a car park are those imposed by the car park owner on the car owner. The new clause would impose obligations on the car park operator. It has been established in case law over more than 50 years that the person driving the car into the car park purchases no more than a licence to park there and has no protection whatever. Many, if not most, car park operators in Britain do not provide even basic levels of security in their car parks, so it is hardly surprising that 25 per cent. of car crime occurs in car parks. That is significant because, on Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he hoped to reduce car crime by 10 per cent.—that was the Prime Minister's target—yet 25 per cent. of that car crime is neglected by the Bill as it stands.
 Car crime drops dramatically when a car park operator introduces anti-vehicle crime measures, especially when the operator decides to develop the car park to secured car park award standards. The fact that car parks are not included in consumer protection regulation is an anachronism. Motorists and car owners, like other consumers, have the right to expect high levels of protection. It could be argued that consumers may have to go to court to prove that they are right, that they can simply claim from their insurance companies for the loss suffered, or that car park operators could insure their car parks against third party claims—but those arguments miss the point. 
 Motorists parking in car parks have no rights at all. It is pointless for them to claim against the operator because, uniquely, the law is wholly on the side of the service provider rather than the consumer. The new clause would not place the total liability on car park operators for the protection and security of cars parked on their property. We propose instead a means by which we would place an obligation that the operator take reasonable measures to protect motorists' property in exchange for the parking charge paid.

Michael Fabricant: As far as I can see, the only obligation in the new clause is that a car park operator be registered and that the local authority maintain the register. The hon. Gentleman began to say that he wants car park operators to take reasonable steps to ensure that the car is protected while parked, but I see nothing of that in the new clause.

David Chidgey: The purpose of the new clause is to open the debate on the issue of the significant amount of car crime that takes place in car parks. It would make it a requirement for car park operators to register with local authorities. I hope that Ministers will take that point seriously so that, at a later stage, regulations could be developed to state what was required of operators for them to be placed on that register. We are trying to engage Ministers in debate on the important issue of the high level of crime that takes place in car parks.

John Bercow: I apologise for having had to pop out during the hon. Gentleman's presentation of the new clause. I understand what he is saying about the incidence of crime in car parks, but can he explain to what extent, if at all, he feels that car park operators are themselves culpable and that the problem would be diminished by registration?

David Chidgey: I believe that the statistics show that car park operators are, in the main, ignoring the recommendations for developing car parks to secure standards that the police and the AA, among others, have promoted and advised on.
 We do not suggest that car park operators should be entirely liable and responsible for cars in their car parks. However, we propose that an obligation be placed on operators to take reasonable measures to protect motorists' property in exchange for the parking charge paid. A reasonable measure would be defined as a standard equal to the secured car park award. The AA currently administers the secured car parks scheme on behalf of the police. The scheme has been in operation for more than five years. 
 On the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, so far, of more than 10,000 car parks, fewer than 700 have achieved secured status. With 25 per cent. of car crime taking place in car parks, that is a matter of great anxiety, and Ministers should take it extremely seriously. 
 To emphasise the point, I should like to discuss the case of one town that was plagued by high levels of vehicle crime in its car parks during the mid-1990s—and presumably for some years before. The local council, working with the police and the AA, implemented a policy of improving its car parks to secured car park standards. The salient and telling point is that in 1995 thefts from vehicles in those car parks were 38, and thefts of vehicles 34, but in 1999, with the secured car park regime in operation, there were no thefts from or of vehicles—a significant difference if ever there was one. 
 It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that that astute and effective policy was introduced by an award-winning local council, my own, Liberal Democrat-controlled council, Eastleigh borough council— 
Mr. Bercow rose—

David Chidgey: I did not for one moment believe that I would be able to continue my presentation without arousing the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm and interest. No doubt he will find an explanation in his own mind of why the scheme was so successful. I await his intervention with bated breath.

John Bercow: I fear that on this occasion I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as I did not want to make a partisan point, and I shall ignore that comment. I was interested in, and rather struck by, his comment about the small proportion of operators who are compliant. I was going to ask him whether, as far as he is aware, it is only the larger operators that are compliant. In other words, is a financial factor involved?

David Chidgey: I misjudged the hon. Gentleman, who makes an important and thoughtful point. I shall answer his question as best I can.
 The statistics currently available do not distinguish between large and small operators. However, a cost is involved—that of closed circuit television cameras and better lighting and policing. Perhaps that is why car park operators are not subscribing voluntarily to the scheme. However, I must point out again that 25 per cent. of vehicle crime takes place in car parks. The cost of that must far outweigh the cost of basic measures to improve security. It is clear from the statistics that the car industry will not embrace the secured car park scheme without Government action. Why should it, when motorists are queueing to pay to go in, even though they know that criminals are allowed to go about their work with no interference—and perhaps no interest—from the car park owner? 
 The new clause would place a reasonable obligation on car park operators to bring car parks up to secure parking standards and would make inroads into tackling the quarter of all vehicle crime that currently takes place in car parks.

Michael Fabricant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh on tabling the new clause. Although, for a couple of reasons that I shall give shortly, I do not believe that it should be included in the Bill, the fact that it has been tabled is important. The Minister has listened patiently and politely—and, I am sure, with great interest—to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. It is a sobering thought that less than 7 per cent. of all car parks meet the requirement. At present, the number of trains running is severely diminished. I have to drive to and from Lichfield every weekend instead of taking the train from Lichfield Trent Valley. I am relieved that at least the House of Commons car parks are among the 7 per cent.
 One of the problems of the new clause—I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for Eastleigh presented it—is subsection (5), which states: 
 The register shall, subject to any requirements that may be prescribed, be in such form as the local authority consider appropriate. 
It is another of the blank cheques to which I object so strongly. Nevertheless, it highlights the real problem of vehicle crime: so much of it is committed in car parks. As more and more people have access to more and more cars, more and more people need to park them, especially when public transport is not up to the standard that we should like, and it is more important that vehicle crime be diminished by having reasonable standards. I invite an intervention from the hon. Member for Eastleigh to outline briefly what he would like subsection (5) to contain—is he thinking of closed circuit television?—and why.

David Chidgey: One must remember that the AA secured car park scheme set out the measures that one should take to achieve the standard that is recognised by the award of a plaque. To be precise, I am in favour of CCTV; clear, effective lighting within the car park, the access to it and the lift areas; good visibility; and regular checks by parking attendants—all of which will improve standards.
 A survey has shown that as a result of improvements in the car parks in the town that I mentioned earlier—which happens to be in my constituency—to the standards that we are discussing, customer satisfaction with the car parks was, from memory, 84 per cent. and feelings of safety when using them was over 90 per cent. Let me put that into perspective. I know the car park well. It is a multi-storey building close to the railway station. Before the improvements, it was well known as an area to be avoided. It was a question of not only whether to park one's car there, but whether to enter it at all, such was the feeling of insecurity and danger. I hope that I have helped hon. Members by talking about the measures that can be taken and their effect on the patronage of car parks—in Eastleigh, on one that was usually left empty.

Michael Fabricant: That was a very helpful intervention. The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, not only about crimes against the car and its contents, but about the fear of crime against the person. All members of the Committee will know of many car parks that people feel unhappy and uncomfortable about going into at night, especially when they are badly lit. Will the Minister outline some of the provisions of the AA secured car park scheme and say whether, in different legislation, the Government would be minded to adopt all those provisions?
 I was surprised to learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) would not be speaking this morning. I should have thought that the matter would come more under the aegis of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions than of the Home Office. Perhaps I can tempt him to intervene at some point or to make a statement. He is nodding in the negative.

John Bercow: It is worth noting that, although the Under-Secretary intends to be silent, he earnestly assured me in the Tea Room last night that he had devoured the proceedings of last Thursday afternoon in readiness for his silent attendance today. Is my hon. Friend aware that I share his concern about the all-embracing and factual character of subsection (5)? Does he agree that it would be helpful if the hon. Member for Eastleigh would explain whether registration under the new clause would carry a fee?

Michael Fabricant: Yet again, my hon. Friend raises an interesting, valid and pertinent point. In inviting the hon. Member for Eastleigh to intervene on me—I thought at one point that he might intervene on my hon. Friend, who was intervening on me—to respond to that point, will he also comment on whether the scheme would be self-financing? What dissuaded him from including the provisions of the AA secured car park scheme in subsection (5) instead of having such an all-embracing, catch-all subsection?

David Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Chairmen of Committees rarely like to have interventions on interventions, but I am more than happy to be patient on such matters.

Bill O'Brien: Order. Let me advise hon. Members that I am allowing the interventions because I hope that they will shorten the winding-up by providing the answers.

David Chidgey: I am very grateful, Mr. O'Brien. I feel that I have presented the new clause in sufficient detail to give the Minister an understanding of my views, and I hope that I shall not need to detain the Committee longer with a winding-up speech. Does the hon. Member for Lichfield think it reasonable that the payment of a fee should cover the costs of administering the scheme as we have discussed it in other parts of the Bill? Now I have forgotten the other point that I wished to make in response to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt guide me.

Michael Fabricant: I had almost forgotten myself. The other point was why the hon. Gentleman was not minded to writer the AA scheme into subsection (5).

David Chidgey: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the most important aspect of developing the new clause was that it should meet the Chairman's requirements as a bona fide amendment to the Bill? If it had been developed further into that level of detail, it might not have been selected.

Michael Fabricant: I am not sure whether that is a correct answer, but it is understandable. The hon. Gentleman has not given an estimate of how much the registration fee might be. He will know that any such fee is bound to be passed on to the clients of the car park, and that car parking charges are already high, especially in London. Although I welcome the principle behind the new clause, I am concerned that the consequential cost of registration and the provision of closed circuit television would raise those charges considerably higher.
 While I was saying that, it occurred to me that if car parking were safer and less payouts had to be made, there might be a slight reduction in car insurance premiums. However, that might be wishful thinking, and I suspect that it would be optimistic to expect a reduction there.

David Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the level of administrative charges on car park registration should be no different from those for registration of salvage operators? The cost of that registration would be more than repaid to car park operators by the fact that their car parks would become the most sought-after and patronised in the area.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. All car parks would have to be registered, which would be a good thing in itself.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman should accept the logic of his own powerful point? The hon. Gentleman asserted that the registration costs should be no greater in this case than they would be for motor salvage operators, which implies that he has some idea of what he thinks those costs should be. That would somewhat obviate the need for subsection (5), which permits the very flexibility that could result in widespread differences in fees. If he knows what the costs should be, why can he not guarantee that they would be uniform across the country?

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh wants to make a helpful intervention.

David Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the costs of administration would, quite simply, be the costs of administration, so they would naturally vary between car parks? The principle is that one should be able to predict what the charges would be from the detail of the Bill and the regulations that follow from it. The hon. Gentleman questions the concept of choice, saying that all car parks must be registered, but there would be a choice between parking one's car in a secure car park or in the street.

Michael Fabricant: I agree with the latter point, but on the former point, the cost of the administrative charges would differ from authority to authority. One would naturally expect that Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities would have higher charges. However, I do not want to make a party political point, so I move on rapidly.
 The Minister will no doubt say that he does not want the new clause to be incorporated in the Bill. I understand why he might say that. However, would he like the first paragraph of the Labour manifesto—which we all know will refer to the success of the dome, as that was a pledge made by the Prime Minister—to be replaced by a commitment to introduce legislation such as that mooted by the hon. Member for Eastleigh? It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to suggest such sensible legislation, as he is one of only seven Members who are chartered engineers.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister explain why one in four vehicle crimes is not dealt with in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said that 25 per cent. of all vehicle crimes occurred in car parks; that includes local authority, commercial, supermarket and hospital car parks. Given the importance of the Bill, why has such a significant aspect been left out?
 I do not want to be parochial, but I draw the Minister's attention to the underground car park in the centre of Derby; he should go there if he wants to see a good covered car park. I recently had cause to use it, and I have never seen such an excellent car park. It is well lit, clean, attractive, and the security is perfect. That car park is not the responsibility of a Liberal Democrat authority. That is my point. I would like to think that councils of all complexions take car crime seriously. 
 If the Minister cannot take on board the excellent new clause, and the excellent case made for it this morning, will he at least consider those arguments outside the Committee? Many motorists would welcome legislation that made car parking safer. In response to the hon. Member for Lichfield, I must say that I believe that car owners would be a lot happier to pay to park their car where it was secure than pay slightly less and run the risk—a one-in-four risk—that someone will nick something or even take the vehicle.

Charles Clarke: I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for tabling the new clause, because it is an important debate, and I want to set out the Government's position clearly.
 The Bill flows from the recommendations of the vehicle crime reduction action team, which includes representatives of insurers, car drivers and manufacturers, the police and so on. The team made a 13-point set of proposals, which make up the legislation that we are debating. It also made a series of proposals about secure car parks, for exactly the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I want to set out why we give priority to that, before addressing the particular proposals. 
 Good standards of design and management make a major difference to crime in car parks. Incidentally, the proportion of car crime that takes place in car parks is 22 per cent., not the quarter referred to by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. The Association of Chief Police Officers secured car park scheme, administered by the AA, is the vehicle by which that difference will be achieved. There are 825 secured car parks, but it is a major aim of the Government to increase that number substantially.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will say what I have to say and give way to those who want to ask questions at the end.
 The secured car park scheme dictates that car parks should meet prescribed standards set down by ACPO, the AA and others. Those standards include a good level of surveillance, which can be achieved by CCTV; secure and clearly defined boundaries, and good lighting—which the hon. Member for Colchester mentioned in his praise of the car park in Derby. There should also be good vehicle access for entry and exit, and good pedestrian access. Both types of access should be kept to a minimum, so that there are relatively few points of access. In addition, an effective level of security patrol staff is important, and there should be a customer charter and help point, so that drivers can raise matters directly. Records should be kept of crimes and customer complaints. That is a substantial range of requirements and, clearly, such a level of security will entail costs for a car park. However, a sample of the secured car parks shows that a secured car park scheme reduces crime in car parks by an average of 70 per cent., which is a very high percentage indeed. The famous example is the Wood Green car park in north London. When it was made secure, car crime in a vulnerable area was reduced by 86 per cent. In my own constituency, where secure car parks have been introduced we have found zero levels of theft from and of cars. It is an important element in the development. 
 I was glad that the hon. Member for Colchester made his point about Derby. Certainly, Liberal Democrat councils have been positive about that, and I pay tribute to Eastleigh borough council. However, so have Labour councils, and so even have some Conservative councils, been committed to making this happen. It is not a party political issue but a question of the competence and effectiveness of the local authority. 
 The Government have so far allocated £42 million to meet the costs of installing CCTV in 775 car parks, of which 457 aim to achieve secure status with the reductions in crime that are implied. 
 The cost point is a serious one. It is a question not simply of CCTV, with which Government can help under our current programmes, but of the other measures that I have set out which require a contribution from the operators. Here it is not so much a question of large and small, although there is an issue about large and small; it is also an issue of municipal or non-municipal . In many local authorities that run car parks there is a real issue as to how they can raise extra costs for securing car parks when they are financially under pressure. We believe that there are various devices to address that, including outsourcing the management of their car parks to professional car park administration companies. That is the major blockage that we have in increasing the take-up of secured car parks. There are issues with some of the national operators, but there are also issues with the large number of municipal car parks in this country for which the costs involved seem substantial. 
 To that end, we held during September-October a series of regional seminars, chaired normally by a chief constable for the region and funded by the Home Office. We invited local authorities and police from throughout the region, together with major car park operators, to try to get a broader take-up of such investment for the reasons mentioned. The Government are extremely active in carrying out that programme, for the reasons that I have mentioned. 
 The issue of insurance was raised. One of the reasons why we have adopted the scheme is that the Association of British Insurers is a member of the VCRAT scheme and sees all the advantages that have been set out. 
 There are also advantages in terms of inter-modal travellers—

John Bercow: Of what?

Charles Clarke: Inter-modal travellers—as the jargon takes it. We must consider how to enable people better to change between car and train or whatever. One of our major CCTV awards was to London Underground for the purpose of putting secured car parks in at underground stations in the London region so that people would drive to the car park near them, leave their car securely and then travel on the tube rather than drive into the centre of London. The hon. Member for Buckingham referred to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He and I have a strong professional relationship. We meet on a regular basis to discuss such issues because we believe that creating secured car parks where people feel confident to leave their cars or bikes will make it possible to pursue the integrated transport initiatives for which my hon. Friend is responsible. Secured car parks are an important element of that, but we have to do a great deal in rolling out the programme.
 In fundamental terms, we are sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. We wish to promote an overall policy of developing the secured car park programme for all the reasons that I have stated and which he mentioned. We welcome further thoughts and discussions on that. 
 The hon. Gentleman raised the question of consumer legislation, which is a difficult matter. I have discussed it with some of the industries concerned. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that I and my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are currently in discussion about re-examining the role of consumer legislation in that area. It is not an easy matter; the question of where accountability falls is not straightforward. Nor is it absolutely clear that there would be crime reduction benefits in that, though there may well be benefits to individual consumers in parking their cars. We are ready to discuss those questions. 
 I will give way to hon. Members who have points to raise before I sit down. For the sake of clarity, the clause deals only with registration, and not with the various other aspects that we have discussed, and that are important to the approach. I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, because he has raised the debate in an important way, but the registration provision will not in itself achieve the process that we have described. The burdens on business, the question of a regulatory impact assessment, and the question of fees, which the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Lichfield raised, are important aspects of any scheme. That is why we have not formally consulted on regulation of car park operators with either business or local authorities, which would be a substantial regulatory burden. 
 Our approach so far, guided by the vehicle crime reduction action team, has been not to legislate in this area but to roll out a voluntary programme and provide encouragement and resources. That is why I will ask the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw the motion, but before I sit down, I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield.

Michael Fabricant: I understand the Minister's plan to make the scheme voluntary, but, as he will be aware, few people outside the Committee know about the ACPO scheme administered by the AA. Until the debate, I was unaware of it myself. Does he agree that more—indeed some—publicity should be given to the scheme?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Among car park operators and local government, there is substantial awareness of the secured car parks scheme. I have secure car parks in my constituency. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any in his. We measure which police authorities have a good number of secured car parks and which car parks are doing well—each has a target—with a view to discussing with local and police authorities what can be done. That is the reason for the seminars that I mentioned. We have run a substantial vehicle crime publicity programme—of which the hon. Member for Lichfield may be aware—urging people to use secure car parks. I say without irony that I am sorry that that has not come to his attention. It is always the case that more publicity would be beneficial, and I would accept that rebuke, but nevertheless I believe that we have done significantly more than his question implies.

Michael Fabricant: I may have been unclear. The Minister says—rightly, I am sure—that local authorities are aware of the scheme, and he touched on the issue of individual citizens being aware. Surely if there were a recognised symbol for such secure car parks, and that symbol were recognised by the populace as a whole, there would be far greater pressure on the municipal authorities to which he referred, as well as on private operators and those who run car parks at railway stations and airports to qualify for that symbol. There is no kitemark, as it were, for the standard.

Charles Clarke: There is a symbol, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not know it. I am inspired by this exchange.

John Bercow: What a sad anorak.

Charles Clarke: If I am a sad anorak, how much more so is the hon. Member for Lichfield? I am ready to write to all hon. Members to set out details of the scheme, so that they are familiar with the situation, and can see what they can do to raise the issues in their constituencies.

David Chidgey: The Minister has given us the benefit of a detailed explanation of the Government's science, but I would be grateful for his response to two or three points. He told us that the Government were active in a programme of working together with the interested parties. He hopes to see results from that programme. I believe that the Minister said that 825 car parks were now classified as secure, but we are talking about approximately 10,000 car parks. It may be that only 22 per cent., rather than 25 per cent., of vehicle crime is committed in car parks, but that is still a major factor in vehicle crime. I look to the Minister to give me more information about the programme. How many of the car parks are municipal car parks that can benefit from funding from the Home Office CCTV schemes? How quickly are they reacting? What is the overall programme? How many car parks do the Government envisage will become secure over a reasonable period? I appreciate that the Minister may have to write to me on those issues, but they are important. It is easy to say blandly, ``We are on the case''—so to speak. This is a serious problem and there is a huge mountain still to climb.
 The Minister mentioned that he was working with his colleagues in the DTI on amendments to consumer law. I am grateful for that. It would be not unreasonable to place a burden—if it is to be called that—on a commercial enterprise and require it to offer a proper service to customers rather than for customers to assume that they are getting a service when all that has happened is that the car park has been given a licence. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Charles Clarke: On the latter point, we will certainly report to the House when we have proposals to make. On the consumer legislation point, I say only that there are serious issues of concern about how to make it work, which the hon. Gentleman, from his experience, will understand. They are not easy to resolve so I do not suggest that an immediate resolution is possible.
 We are not bland about the programme; in fact, we are extremely energetic, which is why we held the seminars that I described. We do not have a specific target, although ACPO has suggested that we should aim for 2,000 car parks in Britain having secured status over a period of time. I do not want to hide the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised, which I addressed in my remarks. There is a real issue with some serious car park owners about how to make the investment required to make secured car park status happen. We are ready to help with the CCTV costs with substantial amounts of money, but taking it more widely is a serious issue. The suggestion that I offered in response to the hon. Member for Lichfield is a good one. I encourage Members of Parliament to take a role in their own constituencies to promote secured car parks. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh may be prepared to withdraw the motion.

David Chidgey: I am grateful to the Minister for taking his usual careful time to develop the arguments that we have made in the new clause. It is encouraging, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - Relief of small motor salvage operatorsfrom excessive expense and bookkeeping, etc.

``(1) Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator has a turnover from the activities that are specified in section 1(2) of less than £1,000,000 per annum, the maximum fee that a local authority may determine under section 3(1)(b) shall be calculated on a sliding scale from—
(a) turnover less than £100,000 per annum: maximum fee that may be determined £20, to
(b) turnover less than £1,000,000 per annum: maximum fee that may be determined £200.
 (2) Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases:
(a) a part of a motor vehicle for less than £20, or
(b) five or more parts together for less than £100,
he shall not be obliged by such regulations as may be made under section 7(1) to keep a record of the description of the part or parts (save that the part in question has been marked with a vehicle identification number under the provisions of regulation 67(3) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986).
 (3) Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases for less than £100 a motor vehicle whose engine and chassis or frame are over 10 years old, he shall not be obliged by such regulations as may be made under section 8(1) to notify the destruction of the motor vehicle.
 (4) Where a person carries on the business of a motor salvage operator in whole or part on domestic premises, the right of a constable to enter and inspect premises under section 9(1) shall not extend to the domestic premises.''.—[Mr. Chidgey.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Chidgey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I now turn to something completely different, as a well-known television show used to say. New clause 3 deals with the relief for small motor salvage operators from excessive expense. It arises from concerns that have arisen in clauses 1 to 15. We wish to discover how the Government propose to treat the type of salvage operators whom new clause 3 describes.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his presentation. He said what had motivated him. May I inquire through you, Mr. O'Brien, about the genesis of the clause in terms of advance consultation on it? The hon. Gentleman and I have listened with interest and respect to the representations made by outside organisations. Has the hon. Gentleman discussed the new clause with representatives of the motor salvage sector?

David Chidgey: I give due credit to the help and advice that we have received from outside organisations. In particular, the British Motorcyclists Federation has been very helpful in advising me and my colleagues on the concerns that exist within this sector of the motor salvage operations industry. I was more than happy to introduce the new clause to see whether the Minister could respond to those concerns.
 The reason for introducing the new clause is the concern that the Bill threatens to kill off a particular market of second-hand parts for old models of motor cycles and cars by imposing excessive paperwork and expense. As many hon. Members know, between the 1950s and 1970s, almost all British manufacturers of motor cycles ceased production, to our everlasting shame and concern. Parts for older models are therefore no longer produced and that has left many devoted owners of older vehicles in a very difficult situation. 
 Against that background, a number of small companies, or even individuals, took up the manufacture or reconditioning of parts for the models in question. Famously, some national one-make clubs, such as the Vincent owners club, set up companies to supply spare parts. More recently, that demand for parts has caused a large increase in the number and spread of auto-jumbles. Auto-jumbles are similar to jumble sales or car boot sales.

Bob Russell: Excuse the pun.

David Chidgey: Indeed.
 At auto-jumbles people either exchange spare parts that they no longer need or sell spare parts as a commercial activity at pitches and stalls. The events can be independent, but they are usually part of larger motor cycle rallies or shows. A good example is the British Motorcyclists' Federation's annual show, which takes place at the east of England showground at Peterborough. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester finds time to inspect the wares at that show, which cannot be far from his home. He looks askance. I have always imagined my hon. Friend to be a keen enthusiast of two-wheeled transport, but perhaps of the bicycle rather than the motor cycle. 
 The original auto-jumbles were thought to be associated mainly with classic or vintage motorcycle events and so they featured only the spare parts of older models. Now, auto-jumbles are associated with almost every sort of motorcycle rally, so they feature a wider range of parts for many different models. 
 A similar network of small companies and individuals who sell spare parts for older models at auto-jumbles now also exists for motor cars. In Britain, there is now a range of suppliers of spare parts for old motor cycles and cars. The suppliers span the spectrum, from the private individual who sells spare parts that are surplus to his requirements, to the ordinary commercial operation. 
 That is the nub of the new clause. The Bill currently focuses on the commercial operations of motor salvage operators. That is right because it deals with vehicle crime within organised commercial activities. However, it is wrong that the flourishing activity of individuals who began exchanging parts that could no longer be bought from recognised suppliers and, through enthusiasm for their old motor bikes, invested energy and resources in creating companies to manufacture parts that would keep their machines on the road, should also be subject to the bureaucracy of clauses 1 to 15. It seems wrong that those at the lower end of the spectrum should be subject to legislation that is aimed at controlling illegal commercial activity. Many of the people in question run their business activities from home. Do the Government really intend that such people should be faced with the prospect of a policeman without a warrant knocking on the door of their home to search their back bedrooms for spare parts that have, allegedly, been criminally obtained? 
 The new clause has been drafted with the advice of the British Motorcyclists Federation in order to bring to Ministers' attention the danger that small suppliers of spare parts for old models of motor cycles and cars will be subject to disproportionate expense and bureaucracy. At this late stage, I ask the Ministers to give guidance about how this unique but small sector of the motor vehicle fraternity might be afforded appropriate relief.

Michael Fabricant: I broadly support new clause 3, although I disagree with subsection (4), and I shall explain my reasons for that shortly.
 I have already mentioned that I am a former motor cyclist. I used to own a Yamaha FJ 1200 that took me all around Europe, but in 1992, when my party had a diminishing majority in the House, I was advised by the Whips that it would be more responsible of me to revert to four wheels. That is what I have done ever since, although I think that, in my dotage, I might go back to two wheels.

John Bercow: I was not aware of my hon. Friend's previous possession of a Yamaha, but it is relevant. The motor cycling community often imagines that Parliament does not have much close personal experience of, or empathy with, its concerns. In that context, is my hon. Friend aware that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is the proud owner of a powerful motor cycle and that he was the only person in recorded history to be provided with a company motor bike while he was employed at 32 Smith square.

Michael Fabricant: I certainly was not aware of that, but I do not have to remind the Committee that Michael Jopling, who is now in another—[Interruption.]

Bill O'Brien: Order. I will not allow a conversation about which members of the Tory party own motor cycles. Please will hon. Members keep to new clause 3.
 Mr. Fabricant: Mr. O'Brien, the mention of the former Chief Whip ensures that I will certainly keep to your recommendation that a history of the Conservative party and motor cycles is not appropriate. 
 I do not understand the motive for including subsection (4), which states: 
 Where a person carries on the business of a motor salvage operator in whole or part on domestic premises, the right of a constable to enter and inspect premises under section 9(1) shall not extend to the domestic premises. 
It is wholly wrong to include that subsection. Although I am sure that many people working from domestic premises, under the conditions foreseen by new clause 3, will be doing so lawfully—indeed, most salvage operators and licence plate manufacturers carry on their businesses lawfully—the point of the Bill is to limit crimes to those who are conducting their business unlawfully.

David Chidgey: Is the hon. Gentleman comfortable with the prospect of police officers entering domestic premises without warrants?

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman was not present last week when we discussed the issue at length. You were in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, when we discussed
 the North Yorkshire County Council Bill, the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill, which contain similar provisions. Under those Bills, although constables would not need a warrant to enter registered premises, they would need a warrant to enter unregistered premises, where people were almost certainly committing crimes. I share that concern about entering premises. 
 Whether logically the argument should apply more to domestic premises is a moot point. I simply make the point that, if an offence is committed on domestic premises, the same provisions for a police officer to enter should apply to those premises as to business premises.

David Chidgey: I am intrigued to hear that the hon. Gentleman has such a dispassionate view on the sanctity of domestic premises. Does he believe that police officers should have the same rights of entry to his home in Lichfield—without a warrant, for any reason—as they would to commercial premises as defined in the Bill?

Michael Fabricant: First, I am not dispassionate. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard report of last week's Committee sitting, he will know that I have strong opinions about the issue.
 The answer to his main and substantive question is, yes, if I am carrying out commercial work at my home in Lichfield, police officers should have the same rights of entry as they would if I were carrying on business at some other premises. It would be illogical for a constable not to have those rights of entry. Of course, if I were not carrying out business at my home, constables would not have a right of entry. The Bill does not suggest that they would. 
 I appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh about vintage, veteran and older motor cycles. As he rightly pointed out in his introduction to the new clause, Britain has a fine history of motor cycle manufacture. Perhaps history is no longer history: Triumph is now successfully marketing its motor cycles, not just in the United Kingdom. Triumph motor bikes, which are made near Coventry, are exported to the United States, Australia and other countries. 
 People who own BSAs, older Triumph bikes, Bantams—if I knew enough about motor cycle history I could go on ad nauseam through a long list of manufacturers—have difficulty obtaining spare parts. They are certainly not available under normal commercial conditions. We previously discussed e-mail and other electronic communications. One can find on the internet websites of people who provide spare parts for older bikes in a semi-commercial, semi-hobby way. Those people should not be overly burdened by the Bill's registration provisions. 
 I welcome the broad principle of a sliding scale of charges. However, I would not welcome a complete exemption because illegal salvage work may still be done, although that would be unlikely in the case that I have described.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is arguing for a more relaxed regime for salesmen of older parts because the use of such parts in the commission of vehicle crime is relatively infrequent, compared with that of newer and arguably more robust parts?
 Mr. Fabricant: Yes, and I am arguing for it for another reason. I suspect that it is mainly hobbyists who undertake such activity—the Minister may be able to advise the Committee on that. I am sure that it is not the Bill's intention that they should be squeezed out of the activity through high charges.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. Such people may be part-time operators who are engaged in other businesses, and the business in older parts—perhaps through the internet—may be only a small proportion of their total business turnover. If that is what my hon. Friend is saying, will he accept that such individual operators would have to be registered in order to comply with the general terms of the Bill, even if they make only a small part of their income from the activity?

Michael Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend raises an interesting and perceptive point. I sometimes think that he can read my mind.
 I have a friend from university who read medicine and is a GP. He visits his patients on a motor bike and also has a hobby of providing such parts. His long-suffering wife has to put up with spare parts in their home, as well as his medical kit, and she has said to me that she sees an incompatibility between the greasy components and the cleanliness that a GP must maintain. 
 Would my friend, the GP who collects spare parts as a hobby, and passes them on to other BSA owners—not for a profit but to cover his costs—be prevented from continuing his hobby because of high charges? The point of the earlier part of new clause 3 is that there should be a sliding scale. 
 As has almost become a tradition in the Committee, I invite the hon. Member for Eastleigh to intervene. He has set a number of price and income criteria. New clause 3 states that for operators with an income of 
less than £1,000,000 per annum, the maximum fee that a local authority may determine under section 3(1)(b) shall be calculated on a sliding scale. 
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, far from introducing a blank cheque, he has created too much inflexibility? Does he agree that if the new clause were incorporated in the Bill—I suspect that it will not be—there should be an additional subsection that would allow a multiplier that took account of inflation, or even deflation?

David Chidgey: I do not want to eat into time at the end of the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when setting out new areas to be considered in the Bill, there must be a starting point, and that the appropriate costs at that time should be set out? It would not be inflexible as, if the Government responded to the new clause positively, we would expect to see detailed legislation, through regulations, to make it work in the long term. Does he agree that the main issue is to ensure that the Government consider the matter?

Michael Fabricant: Yes. The Minister might be sympathetic to the broad principle. He has mentioned several times in this Committee that he is unwilling to put unreasonable burdens on businesses. By extension, I suspect that he is also unwilling to put unreasonable burdens on hobbyists, particularly when they provide a valuable service in offering spare parts—legitimately—to those who run motor cycles and cars for which spare parts are not normally commercially available. I hope that he will say that a sliding scale of charges will apply to people who operate businesses at a low level.

John Bercow: I fear that my hon. Friend is correct in predicting that the Government will not accept the new clause. The Minister has said that he does not want to tell us in advance the form that the draft regulations will take because he feels that doing so would compromise the consultation process. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a useful earnest of the Minister's intentions if he were to let us know whether he thinks that the ballpark figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastleigh in the new clause are broadly right, or whether he has substantially different figures in mind for differential application?

Michael Fabricant: Yes, and I would go further. It would be helpful to know what guidelines the Government might give to registrars for the fees that should be charged generally, and whether they will encourage a sliding scale. Subsection (2) (a) and (b) states:
 Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases a part of a motor vehicle for less than £20, or five or more parts together for less than £100, he shall not be obliged by such regulations as may be made under section 7(1) to keep a record— 
I do not wish to try your patience, Mr. O'Brien, but I am reminded of the Committee stages of the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill. The police in Kent felt that, below a certain level of purchase price, it was not necessary to include information on a register to comply with the provisions of the Bill. Although it was agreed that there should be a register of sales and purchases of second-hand goods by second-hand dealers—by the nature of new clause 3 these would be second-hand goods—the Kent police recognised that it was an excessive burden on business to keep a register of small transactions, because it would be unlikely that anyone would commit a crime involving such small sums; it would not be worth while. I share the view of the Kent police and would like to apply it to the Bill. 
 Does the Minister agree that it would be unnecessarily onerous to keep records for such low-value items? If so, does he agree that the exemption level should be £20 or the aggregate of five items for less than £100? If he does not agree, has he a view about the age of the spare parts? What if a part were over 10 or 20 years old because it was for an ``historic'' vehicle—that is not an unreasonable adjective to use when talking about old Bantams and BSAs? Should only price come into it? Should there not also be an exemption to register based on the age of the spare part?

David Chidgey: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his statement? Should he not refer to spare parts for vehicles of an age of more than 20 years, rather than the spare part itself? The spare part may have been professionally manufactured by one of the owners clubs' organisations. The issue is about vehicles of an age of 20 years or more, not about spare parts of such an age.

Michael Fabricant: Yes, that definition would be a good one. However, I am slightly mindful of vehicles that have not changed—Land Rovers might be one example, but I could be slandering the Land Rover company, so I am cautious. I do not wish a commercial operation that might be open to crime to be exempt from the clause. The only circumstances in which that might happen is in relation to a vehicle that is available new but has continued to be produced, with some parts virtually unchanged, for 20 or more years. With that particular caveat, I agree to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
 However, I suspect that the debate is somewhat hypothetical because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, new clause 3 probably will not be included in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing because the Minister should respond to the point.

John Bercow: I agree that the new clause is unlikely to be accepted because Ministers have not yet accepted any new clauses or amendments. That does not reduce or remove our responsibility to consider the merits of new clauses and amendments. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to establish from the hon. Member for Eastleigh whether his figures, for example in subsection (2) (a) and (b), are purely illustrative and for the purpose of engendering debate, or whether they are based on his consultations with the sector and reflect the volume of sales of given parts that are, ordinarily, not caught up in the commission of crime?

Michael Fabricant: I suspect that the figures were suggested by the British Motorcyclists Federation.

David Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as I stated earlier, advice was taken from the British Motorcyclists Federation, and that it is to be expected that the figures were suggested on the basis of their knowledge of the sector?

Michael Fabricant: Yes, of course I accept that. However, I believe that the figures were included more for debate, as was the case with new clause 2, than with the intention of being included in the Bill. Nevertheless, the Minister said that he does not want an unnecessary burden to be placed on business and I hope that he will confirm that he does not want such a burden to be put on hobbyists either. I wonder whether it would be possible to ensure, through secondary legislation—the sort to which I object so much—that guidelines are given to local authorities, not only on using a sliding scale of charges, based on turnover and age, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh suggested in subsection (3) of the new clause, but on whether there can be complete exemptions based on transaction size.
 Finally, does the Minister agree that subsection (4) is wholly undesirable?

John Bercow: I hope that I did not misunderstand or mishear what my hon. Friend said. One thing that is clear is that there is no provision for total exemption in the proposed new clause. I do not think that that possibility arises at all.

Michael Fabricant: I must read further to find out whether that is the case, during the intervening period before we meet again at 4.30 pm.
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.